The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20230425122259/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547010389818?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1
Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online December 13, 2010

“Oh Yes, Robots! People Like Robots; the Robot People Should do Something”: Perspectives and Prospects in Public Engagement With Robotics

Clare Wilkinson, Karen Bultitude, and Emily DawsonView all authors and affiliations
Volume 33, Issue 3
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389818

Abstract

Governmental and institutional policy making in a number of countries has embedded public engagement strategies as a primary channel to connect citizens with scientific and technological innovation. Robotics is emerging as a key site for such new technological activity and its applications are likely to be increasingly notable in our lives in coming years. Robotics researchers are investing considerable time and effort in “engaging” publics. Concentrating on the findings of 24 qualitative interviews with those actively organizing or engaging publics, across 11 public engagement activities focused on the robotics field within the United Kingdom, this article explores their conceptions of “public engagement” and its benefits and constraints. The results suggest that while the language of engagement has been embraced there remain practical, conceptual, and individual influences on the level of engagement which is experienced.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

References

Bara. (2007). Results for the annual survey of UK robot installations for 2007. British automation and robot association. Coventry, England: University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://www.bara.org.uk/info/statistics/Industrial_Robot_Facts_2007.pdf
Google Scholar
Bell, L. ( 2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29, 386-398.
Google Scholar
Breazeal, C., Brooks, A., Gray, J., Hancher, M., McBean, J., Stiehl, D., & Strickon, J. ( 2003). Interactive robot theatre. Communications of the ACM, 46, 76-84.
Google Scholar
Bucchi, M. ( 2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Burchell, K. ( 2007). Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy . Public Understanding of Science, 16, 145-162.
Google Scholar
Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. ( 2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE Project (Scientists on Public Engagement: From Communication to Deliberation?). London, England: Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society . Retrieved from http://www.2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf
Google Scholar
Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. ( 2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23-43.
Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. ( 2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practices. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 421-451.
Google Scholar
Classens, M. ( 2008). European trends in science communication. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 27-38). New York, NY : Springer.
Google Scholar
Coffey, A., Renold, E., Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Mason, B. ( 2006). Hypermedia ethnography in educational settings: Possibilities and challenges. Ethnnography and Education, 1, 15-30.
Google Scholar
Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P.T. ( 2004). The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15, 433-449.
Google Scholar
Corbyn, Z. ( 2008). Nottingham raises eyebrows over definition of "public engagement." Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403234
Google Scholar
Davies, S.R. ( 2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
Google Scholar
Davies, S.R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J.L., & Duensing, S. ( 2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-353.
Google Scholar
Epstein, S. ( 1996). Impure science, AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Felt, U., & Fochler, M. ( 2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation . Science and Public Policy, 35, 489-499.
Google Scholar
Felt, U., & Wynne, B. ( 2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate General for Research Science, Economy and Society. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf
Google Scholar
Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. ( 2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minevra, 44, 167-184.
Google Scholar
Healey, P. ( 2004). Scientific connoisseurs and other intermediaries: Mavens, pundits, and critics. Swindon, England: ESRC. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Social_Sciences/issue59/mavens.aspx
Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. ( 2002). Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 99-121). London, England: Sage.
Google Scholar
Holliman, R., & Jensen, E. ( 2009). (In)authentic sciences and (im)partial publics: (Re) constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Horlick-Jones, T., Rowe, G., & Walls, J. ( 2007). Citizen engagement processes as information systems: The role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 259-278.
Google Scholar
Horst, M. ( 2008). In search of dialogue: Staging science communication in consensus conferences. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi, (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 259-274). New York, NY: Springer.
Google Scholar
International Federation of Robotics. (2009 ). World Robotics 2009 Service Robots (Executive Summary). Frankfurt, Germany: IFR Statistical Department. Retrieved from http://www.worldrobotics.org/index.php
Google Scholar
Irwin, A. ( 2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1-18.
Google Scholar
Irwin, A. ( 2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
Google Scholar
Irwin, A. ( 2009). Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 3-17). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. ( 2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Google Scholar
Jensen, P., Rouquier, J., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. ( 2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically . Science and Public Policy, 35, 527-541.
Google Scholar
Kasperson, R.E. ( 2006). Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environmental Change, 16, 320-322.
Google Scholar
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. ( 2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37, 385-411.
Google Scholar
McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J.H., Lehr, J.L., Lewenstein, . . . Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education (A CAISE Enquiry Group Report). Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Retrieved from http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf
Google Scholar
Mori. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London, England: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf
Google Scholar
Pearson, G., Pringle, S.M., & Thomas, J.N. ( 1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 279-289.
Google Scholar
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. ( 2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
Google Scholar
Powell, M., & Colin, M. ( 2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 325-342.
Google Scholar
Rcuk. (2009). What is public engagement? Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/peupdate.pdf
Google Scholar
Riise, J. ( 2008). Bringing science to the public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 301-309). New York, NY : Springer.
Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. ( 1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research . In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173-194). London, England: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180
Google Scholar
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation . Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
Google Scholar
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N.F. ( 2008). Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 419-441.
Google Scholar
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 88-121.
Google Scholar
Schäfer, M.S. ( 2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505.
Google Scholar
Sullivan, F.R. ( 2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 373-394.
Google Scholar
Treise, D., & Weigold, M.F. ( 2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23, 310-322.
Google Scholar
Trench, B. ( 2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). New York, NY: Springer.
Google Scholar
Trevelyan, J. ( 1999). Redefining robotics for the new millennium. International Journal of Robotics Research, 18, 1211-1223.
Google Scholar
TwoCan Associates. (2009). An evaluation of the process and impact of patient and public involvement in the advisory groups of the UK clinical research collaboration (Final Report). London, England: UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.ukcrc.org/index.aspx?o=1541
Google Scholar
Ward, V., Howdle, P., & Hamer, S. ( 2008). You and your body: A case study of bioscience communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication, 30, 177-208.
Google Scholar
Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (IN PRESS). "Younger people have like more of an imagination, no offence": Public perspectives on public engagement. Public Understanding of Science.
Google Scholar
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, J. ( 2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos . Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf?1240939425
Google Scholar
Wynne, B. ( 1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44-83). London, England: Sage.
Google Scholar
Young, N., & Matthews, R. ( 2007). Experts understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 123-144.
Google Scholar

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the SAGE Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 33, Issue 3
Pages: 367 - 397
Article first published online: December 13, 2010
Issue published: September 2011

Keywords

  1. public
  2. engagement
  3. robotics
  4. scientists
  5. practitioners

Rights and permissions

© 2011 SAGE Publications.
Request permissions for this article.

History

Published online: December 13, 2010
Issue published: September 2011

Authors

Affiliations

Clare Wilkinson
University of the West of England, Bristol, UK, [email protected]
View all articles by this author
Karen Bultitude
University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
View all articles by this author
Emily Dawson
King's College London, London, UK
View all articles by this author

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Science Communication.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 529

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores


Articles citing this one

Web of Science: 32 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 28

  1. Perceptions of police use of surveillance cameras in Ghana; does proce...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Motivations and deterrents in contemporary science communication: a qu...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Police use of facial recognition technology: The potential for engagin...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Üniversitelerin Bilim iletişimi Etkinliklerinin Kurumsallaştırılması Ü...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Motivations and barriers for young scientists to engage with society: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Water Scarcity Communication in the UK: Learning From Water Company Co...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Is online public engagement a new challenge in the university communic...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Coverage of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning within Academ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Toward narrowing the gap between science communication and science edu...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. How many facets does a “social robot” have? A review of scientific and...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Increasing convergence of civic engagement in management: a systematic...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Rediscovering public engagement in higher education: A bridge between ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. How to Design Citizen-Science Activities: A Framework for Implementing...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. An Interactive Robotic Fish Exhibit for Designed Settings in Informal ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Social Robots from a Human Perspective
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. How to Design Citizen-Science Activities: A Framework for Implementing...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. A Review of the Ambit of Politics in Social Robotics
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  22. Interactive Robotic Fish: A Tool for Informal Science Learning and Env...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  23. Popular Climate Science and Painless Consumer Choices...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  24. Engaging With Strangers and Brief Encounters...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  25. Sex & Bugs & Rock ‘n Roll – getting creative about public engagement
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  26. Why should we promote public engagement with science?
    Go to citation Crossref Google ScholarPub Med
  27. Constituting Public Engagement
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  28. Open Science: A New “Trust Technology”?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Subscribe to this journal

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub
Download PDF

Also from SAGE Publishing